| People v McClain |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02812 [61 AD3d 703] |
| April 7, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v George Robert McClain, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, andSullivan & Cromwell LLP [Amir H. Toosi], of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott, J.),rendered May 10, 2006, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
During the trial, the Supreme Court admitted into evidence three out-of-court statementsmade by the deceased victim prior to her death. Contrary to the defendant's contention, thestatements were properly admitted into evidence. Although evidence of a defendant's pastuncharged criminal conduct is not admissible to show a predisposition toward criminal conduct(see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 291-293 [1901]), such evidence may be admittedwhere "it helps to establish some element of the crime under consideration or is relevant becauseof some recognized exception to the general rule" (People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 242[1987]). Here, the decedent's statements were relevant to establish the defendant's motive and hisrelationship with the decedent. Moreover, the probative value of the evidence outweighed anyprejudice to the defendant (see People vWilliams, 27 AD3d 673 [2006]; People v Linton, 166 AD2d 670, 671 [1990];People v Griffin, 126 AD2d 743 [1987]).
The contention that the defendant raises on appeal regarding the trial court'sSandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) was not raisedbefore the trial court, and is thus unpreserved for [*2]appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Melvin, 223 AD2d 604 [1996]). In anyevent, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in ruling that the prosecutor couldimpeach the defendant's credibility with evidence of two prior felony convictions (see People v Reid, 29 AD3d 712,712-713 [2006]; People v Springer,13 AD3d 657 [2004]). The fact that one of the defendant's judgments of conviction wasrendered 14 years before the trial in the instant matter did not, in and of itself, require preclusionof that judgment of conviction for impeachment purposes (see People v Springer, 13AD3d at 658; People v Turner, 239 AD2d 447 [1997]).
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the recordhere, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur. [See 12Misc 3d 1185(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 51448(U).]